|
Post by JenGe on Aug 31, 2006 12:06:38 GMT -5
Which also leads to my former comment to the effect that those over 25 are also more likely to enjoy Gloria the movie UV is loosely based on.
|
|
|
Post by Wraith on Aug 31, 2006 16:47:31 GMT -5
Well, for the record, I'm only 21. What's this Gloria movie, though? I'm just curious.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Aug 31, 2006 17:14:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dsolidsnake on Aug 31, 2006 19:30:15 GMT -5
"suffice to say I'm young in mind and spirit as Aedh put it...but still fit enough to give any twenty something male a run for his money!!!" Damn Mira don't say things like that you'll give me a heart attack. ;D But as every bachelor around here has already knows that you are definitely worth the attack. Nothing but love for ya.
|
|
|
Post by Aedh on Sept 1, 2006 3:00:29 GMT -5
Damn Mira don't say things like that you'll give me a heart attack. ;D But as every bachelor around here has already knows that you are definitely worth the attack. Nothing but love for ya. Auburn hair ... *ahhhh* ... damn, you shouldn't have mentioned that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mirabilis on Sept 1, 2006 7:15:56 GMT -5
DOH!!! ;D
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 16:05:57 GMT -5
There was no soul in this movie period. Hi all, I'm new here. Came here after I saw Equilibrium. I'm a Kurt Wimmer fan, thanks to his E vision. No, there was no soul, because Milla Jovovich cannot act. I don't know if comics have soul, either, but a first rate actor can translate most crap into gold, imo. Milla had the look, but failed where it mattered more- engaging our hearts.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 16:24:36 GMT -5
the look of the film was cartoonish and i think it was done purposely to look like anime. I think that you are correct that this was intentional. The look is very much like a moving comic book. It may not work for some of you but if I can accept the style of Sin City I sure as heck can accept this look as well. I really, really liked it. Just going down the comments. I so agree. There's no question in my mind that it was meant to be comic-like. Unfortunately, I don't like comic-like stuff. Not my thing, but I surely appreciated what Wimmer set out to do. On its own terms, I thought it was brilliant. The guy is clearly a visionary. On the other hand, less is more. I think you mentioned elsewhere about overproduction, and I would agree. It's like he tried to cram everything into it, visually. For me it was overload (and a shocking contrast to the pleasing minimalism of EQ). Moreover, there rarely was a distinction between background and foreground. Terrence Malick achieves the long focus successfully because his subject is contemplative. When you do that in a film with a lot of movement, colour and design, it becomes less discrete, too much sensation. Comics, I think, have a central visual focus, lots of contrast, a clear background and foreground, and often, I found that missing from this movie. Perhaps it would have been better with a different DP? The guy on EQ sure knew what he was doing!
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 16:43:10 GMT -5
It's unsure at this point if that "blurred" effect was Wimmer's doing or the studios. It was not in the rough cut that Psyclops saw. O. Mi. G-d. Seriously, who thunk that one up? It may have worked if the effects were good, but they weren't. Muddy, distracting, ugly. I understand the attempt. The execution sucked boulders. I should add- who wants airbrushed comic-like effects in the movies? That's what hard copy comics are for! I don't see the reasoning in transferring that to the big screen, which is a totally other medium.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 16:49:22 GMT -5
All that's left relatively intact are his superb action sequences - and it looks like somebody's been trying to kill those too. Maybe it's just my fancy, but I think there was a fantastic movie hidden in there, it just felt like someone chopped it to pieces. ! I think there was too much variation in the action sequences. And too many of them. But that's just me who is not a worshipper of pure action. It was just, too much! And there was no leisurely contemplation of action as there was in EQ. Action just kept coming, right into blurville. Yeah, I agree, there was a fantastic movie there. The seed is incorruptible. The execution needed another creative dynamic, IMO.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 16:59:21 GMT -5
Than you have not read the early Superman comics like I have. You would not believe the dialogue in some of those. It makes Wimmer's sound like poetry. I'm well aware early books had bad dialogue and again I quote myself saying that not every comic book is perfect. I would just expect better in today's film world. I find this interesting. I haven't read comics for many years, and I am more of an age with JenGe as well. The fact is, the movie should be able to stand alone, without any specialised criteria like the fanboy/girl take on it or comic readers' in general take on it and whether they are satisfied, unless it was aimed specifically at them. I think the bigger question is: did the movie succeed on its own terms, and my answer is yes, and, no.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 17:08:49 GMT -5
and enjoy how crappy a movie can be done when someone was trying to make something semi serious. I agree with Jack...I think you are reading this film all wrong...it really is not trying to be semi serious at all. There are some really fun moments of humor still in the film and some were cut out. Did you miss Wimmer's cameo and the hear no...see no...speak no evil moment...Bahahahahah!!! It was great. Or the dreadlocks...bahahah!!! If you thought most of this stuff was serious you are missing a lot of the film. It is very, very much in the vein of Flash Gordon... Okay, if I have to think about the dreadlock thing, I may think it's clever, but I didn't laugh. Wimmer mentioned in the commentary of EQ that maybe he should stay away from jokes. Actually, I thought the techies who ran the media who scrammed when Preston appeared at the doorway after taking out Father was hilarious. I think it's all in the timing. I am not sure Wimmer's timing (in editing) is all that hot. I didn't find the hear no, speak no, that funny because of where it was planted- something else was going on....
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 17:12:02 GMT -5
Wimmers, shall we say, hallucinatory style of filmmaking. What a perfect description! His vision in UV is so unfiltered. I would kill to have 1/1000th of his imagination.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 17:17:49 GMT -5
hat gives him both a sufficient budget and creatiive freedom he'll be on his way. t/quote] Given the excesses of UV, I don't think he needs an extra budget. What he needs is a good DP, freedom to edit, and a challenging producer.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 17:40:38 GMT -5
Here was my problem with the movie: But my biggest dissappointment was how much this movie mirrored Equilibrium. I saw similarities with EQ as well. And then I thought....first of all, we get to repeat the viewing experience many times over, thanks to DVD. So then, the next movie by the same author is judged by a memorable standard. Not like in the good old days, when the making of one movie did not leave an indelible imprint. And then I thought: Hitchcock, Lean, Carpenter, Scorcese, et al, run the same themes thru their movies- whether it's blonde obsession, visual sparks and repression, elongated dread, or social annihilation, respectively....we love those movies without thinking about the sameness. Yet currently we judge the director's vision as somehow lacking-not novel or fresh, thanks to DVD- when familiar themes and images run thru every great director's motion picture. Sure it mirrored EQ. In small parts. Not in most. I am not complaining. And yet I do complain about so much novelty in the action sequences. Have you noticed them? Not one EQ clone in any of them! How on earth did you miss that? As for me, I want gunkata!
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 18:01:45 GMT -5
this is what kills the movie. I thought the story was extremely cliched, with the action vampire theme in Blade and Underworld. Lots of holes in the hemophagia thing (why aren't other vampires as tough as Violet, and if hemophagia makes you smarter, how do you explain Nerva?) I found the story refreshing because they weren't vampires, they were touted as such, but they weren't. So how can you even begin to compare that to the other movies? As for why aren't vampires as tough and smart as Violet? Apart from the fact that she's not a vampire? Well, don't you think that all people are not the same? Different talents, different skills? It's not like the virus confers godlike features on them. If you're dumb to begin with, a virus may make you stronger, but it is not gonna make you smarter.
|
|
|
Post by Wraith on Oct 14, 2007 12:54:46 GMT -5
I do like this movie. it was imperfect and had a bad story but I liked it.
Unlike what many people said, it did have heart in it. In fact that's one thing that I think separated it from other scifi heroine movie junk. Violet was a vulnerable character who didn't just do things in the movie automatically. She was conflicted between doing the right thing and doing the convenient thing, which made her relatable and human.
Another reason I liked it was the action. The fight scenes were imperfectly edited but they were fun and imaginative. And I've heard criticism from people who like some pretty bad action movies themselves. Personally, I have no idea how someone can say that Ultraviolet has badly edited, hackneyed fight scenes while Resident Evil and AeonFLUX somehow don't.
And yes, I may be alone on this, but I actually like the soft-focus look. It was attractive and distinctive. Criticizing something like this would be like criticizing Sin City for being mostly black-and-white. Or Minority Report for its old-school grainy picture
|
|
|
Post by Mirabilis on Oct 14, 2007 13:01:56 GMT -5
I do like this movie. it was imperfect and had a bad story but I liked it. Unlike what many people said, it did have heart in it. In fact that's one thing that I think separated it from other scifi heroine movie junk. Violet was a vulnerable character who didn't just do things in the movie automatically. She was conflicted between doing the right thing and doing the convenient thing, which made her relatable and human. Another reason I liked it was the action. The fight scenes were imperfectly edited but they were fun and imaginative. And I've heard criticism from people who like some pretty bad action movies themselves. Personally, I have no idea how someone can say that Ultraviolet has badly edited, hackneyed fight scenes while Resident Evil and AeonFLUX somehow don't. And yes, I may be alone on this, but I actually like the soft-focus look. It was attractive and distinctive. Criticizing something like this would be like criticizing Sin City for being mostly black-and-white. Very well put Wraith.....agree with you 100%!
|
|
|
Post by Aedh on Oct 14, 2007 15:51:59 GMT -5
Here's to that ... it's about time I saw it again ... I haven't watched it in over a month.
|
|